Ex Parte Du Bois et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 4, 2018

12974365 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/974,365 12/21/2010 Dale R. Du Bois
44257 7590 10/09/2018
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- -Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
014019/USA/DSM/BCVD/AG 3583
EXAMINER
ANTOLIN, STANISLAV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/09/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DALE R. DU BOIS, MOHAMAD A. AYOUB, ROBERT KIM, AMIT
BANSAL, MARK FODOR, BINH NGUYEN, SIU F. CHENG, HANG YU,
CHIU CHAN, GANESH BALASUBRAMANIAN, DEENESH P ADHI, and
JUAN CARLOS ROCHA
Appeal2017-005969
Application 12/974,365
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and WESLEY B.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision
finally rejecting claims 1-7, 9-12, 20, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed
Dec. 21, 2010 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated May 18, 2016 ("Final");
Advisory Action dated June 15, 2016 ("Advisory"); Appeal Brief filed Sept. 1,
2016 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer dated Dec. 9, 2016 ("Ans."); and Reply
Brief filed Feb. 3, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Applied Materials, Inc. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2017-005969
Application 12/974,365
We REVERSE.
According to the Specification, "[a] primary goal of wafer processing is to
obtain the largest useful surface area, and as a result the greatest number of chips,
possible from each wafer." Spec. ,r 4. Non-uniform deposition at wafer edges
reduces useful surface area. See id. ,r,r 4, 5. At the time of the invention, a known
method of minimizing waste was to control deposition at wafer edges by using a
shadow ring to mask or shield a portion of the wafer perimeter from process gases.
Id. ,r 6. A disadvantage of using a shadow ring is that it can be difficult to align.
Id.
The invention "relate[ s] to shadow ring modifications that enhance or
otherwise affect the deposition of process gases on the edge and bevel of a wafer."
Id. ,r 2. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
invention.
1. A shadow ring for use in a deposition chamber, comprising:
an annular body having a top surface and a bottom surface, the
bottom surface including a first annular bottom surface and a second
annular bottom surface, wherein the second annular bottom surface is
disposed in a recessed slot located inwardly relative to the first
annular bottom surface, the second annular bottom surface located a
first distance above the first annular bottom surface;
at least one pin member extending from the first annular bottom
surface; and
an annular lip extending inwardly relative to the recessed slot
and the first annular bottom surface, wherein the annular lip has a
third annular bottom surface located a second distance above the first
annular bottom surface, the second distance less than the first
distance, and wherein the recessed slot is formed between the pin
member and the annular lip.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix). Independent claim 7, the only other
independent claim on appeal, recites "[a] chamber for depositing a material on a
2
Appeal2017-005969
Application 12/974,365
wafer." Id. at 14. The chamber, as recited in claim 7, includes a shadow ring
having features similar to those recited in claim 1, e.g., an annular lip, a recessed
slot, a pin member, and first, second, and third annular bottom surfaces. Id.
Appellants cite Figure 5 and corresponding disclosure in the Specification for a
description of the shadow ring recited in claims 1 and 7. See Appeal Br. 5-6.
Application Figure 5, as annotated by the Examiner on page 3 of the
Advisory Action, is reproduced below.
§:-...-:~,
~ /, ... ,,., .. ,,,~,
~~f' ~"l)
~:~x1 \ ·~ )
.,./·
__ .... ··· .,·······
~ /,
v','.',V ··r · .,,, .. ,,.,•.''.,_./'.,_ ............... ••" ·•w•<,:.:.it ..... ·. · ·· ·. · • • ·
j} ·:.·. . .·%.· .-······ .--- .... · . ~
·--,~~, - .-~·· ,.:: .. --------------· .... ··· ,,, .. ,.,,· ..... -···.·:·.··.·.·'.~
): ........... ······""""'"". ?'"' "'"' "'"' """ .,, ... --·;····< .· "'// / .... ····· ,·····'' .,····· ... / .· .
~, ''-"""'"'·' t I """'" i ··,,:: .... ,,// . ,. / .... ···::::::::;~<, .... 1¥ ·t \_ ti{*
~:~~ .......... ·,•' '.,. . . .~:. ,,•,•,•,•, < ,., ..• , ..• ,;:,···' ~ ~~~~-- ~
I I
lt'ti
~nnulttif
bottom
'SiMrt'~
iw;~~4~·
~~tt~trt
~~
·1$.t
>l*~~~~f
~tk®
*mf~:e~
"Figure 5 is a schematic, partial, cross-sectional view of a shadow ring" (Spec.
,r 26), with annotations identifying an annular lip, a recessed slot, a pin member,
and first, second, and third annular bottom surfaces (Advisory 4). According to the
Specification, "[i]t has been found that the addition of the recessed slot 506 results
in increased deposition at the bevel of the wafer W and increased film thickness at
the edge of the wafer W." Spec. ,r 27.
3
Appeal2017-005969
Application 12/974,365
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Yudovsky US 2004/0003780 Al
Moslehi
Sen
Kaido
US 6,907,924 B2
US 2005/0196971 Al
US 2007 /0065597 Al
Jan. 8,2004
June 21, 2005
Sept. 8, 2005
March 22, 2007
The claims stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
1. claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 20 over Sen in view ofMoslehi;
2. claim 3 over Sen in view ofMoslehi and Yudovsky;
3. claim 4 over Sen in view of Moslehi and Kaido;
4. claims 7, 9, 10, 12, and 21 over Sen in view ofMoslehi; and
5. claim 11 over Sen in view of Moslehi and Yudovsky.
See Final 3-24.
The Examiner relies primarily on the embodiment described in Sen Figures
8A-D for a teaching of a shadow ring as recited in claims 1 and 7. See Final 3---6,
14--16. The Examiner finds Sen does not disclose that the shadow ring in the
embodiment of Figures 8A-D includes a recessed slot and does not describe the
annular lip as having "a third annular bottom surface located a second distance
above the first annular bottom surface, the second distance less than the first
distance" as required by claims 1 and 7. Id. at 6, 16. The Examiner finds the
shadow ring in the embodiment of Sen Figure 12A includes a recessed slot 980d. 3
Id. at 7, 18. The Examiner further finds Moslehi Figure 4 discloses a ring ( clamp
3 We agree with the Examiner that the numbering used in Sen Figures I2A-B is
inconsistent with the numbering used in Sen ,r,r 136-138. Final 7. Like the
Examiner, we refer to the numbering in Figures I2A-B in a manner consistent with
the numbering in Figures 8A-D.
4
Appeal2017-005969
Application 12/974,365
96) for use in a deposition chamber that includes a recessed slot. Id. at 7-8, 18-19.
Based on these teachings, the Examiner finds
a motivation for modifying the annular body of the shadow ring of
Sen[] to include a recessed slot and an annular lip as disclosed by
Moslehi[] is to have a specific type of system configured to be capable
of one or more of: ensuring a uniformity of the magnetic field at the
edge regions of a wafer by incorporating one or more gaps in the form
of one or more recessed slots in a shadow ring so as to be capable of
depositing material uniformly in non-shadowed edge regions of the
wafer; and allowing some physical contact between overhanging
portions of a shadow ring and excluded edge regions of an underlying
wafer while configuring the shadow ring so that any possible
contamination not affect [sic] wafer yield.
Id. at 8-9, 19-20. In the Advisory Action, however, the Examiner does not appear
to rely on Moslehi for a teaching or suggestion of using a recessed slot and an
annular lip, but cites only to Sen Figures 12A-B (see Advisory 6-9, e.g. id. at 9
("[C]laim 1 is obvious in view of Sen[].")), contending the embodiment in these
figures "discloses that gap characteristics ( e.g., shape, depth, width, breadth ...
etc.) are result-effective variables" (id. at 7-8 (citing Sen ,r,r 133-138)).
Appellants argue the Examiner reversibly erred in finding Sen, alone or in
combination with Moslehi, discloses or suggests a shadow ring having a recessed
slot and a second annular bottom surface located therein in the manner recited in
claims 1 and 7. Appeal Br. 9-11. Appellants argue that in the embodiment of
Figures 12A-B, Sen discloses a gap (980d), and a gap is not equivalent to a
recessed slot. Id. at 9. Appellants thus maintain that even if the Figures 8A-D
embodiment was modified to include a gap as is used in the Figures 12A-B
embodiment, the present invention would not result. Id. Appellants argue Moslehi
discloses a clamp ring, which is not equivalent to a shadow ring, and that the
purpose of Moslehi's slot is to accommodate cantilever 102. Id. Appellants
contend one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reason to modify the
5
Appeal2017-005969
Application 12/974,365
Sen Figures 8A-D embodiment, which does not include a cantilever, based on
Moslehi. See id.
In the Response to Argument section of the Answer, the Examiner clarifies
that Moslehi is cited only to "demonstrate[] that including recessed slots in the
form annular chamber [sic] is known in the art." Ans. 12. The Examiner disagrees
with Appellants' argument that a gap is not a recessed slot, citing to dictionary
definitions of "recess" as an indentation in a line and "gap" as a break in a line, in
support of a contention that "a recess in a line creates a gap in that line." Id. at 4--
5. The Examiner explains that
when the embodiment ofin [sic] FIGs. 8A-D of Sen[] is modified to
include a recess slot (gaps 980d between vertical tab 980c &
overhanging portion 980a: FIGs. 12A-B ... & paras [0136]-[0138])
and a depth of the recess slot is optimized to attain any one of an
optimum electric field over a wafer edge; an optimum magnetic field
at the edge regions of a wafer; and an optimum electric field over a
wafer edge and an optimum magnetic field at the edge regions of a
wafer, such optimization can result in the depth of the recess slot
being less than the thickness of the shadow ring 880. In such case, the
recessed slot having the 2nd annular bottom surface defines a thinned
portion of the shadow ring 880 between the top of surface the ring
[sic] and the 2nd annular bottom surface above the recess slot.
Id. at 7 (citing an August 2, 2016, summary of an Applicant Initiated Interview).
In their Reply Brief, Appellants argue that in the Sen Figure 12A-B
embodiment, gaps 980d pass completely through the body of the shadow ring, and
not just the bottom plane, thereby creating openings. Reply Br. 2. Appellants
argue the Examiner has not identified evidentiary support for finding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to close the top portions of those
openings so as to create a recessed slot. Id. at 3.
Sen ,r 137 discloses that due to gaps 980d, spar portions are needed to
maintain physical contact between vertical tab 980c ( allegedly corresponding to
6
Appeal2017-005969
Application 12/974,365
the claimed "pin member") and overhanging portion 980a ( allegedly corresponding
to the claimed "annular lip"), thereby clearly indicating that gaps 980d are
completely open, i.e., extend through the entire body of the shadow ring, as argued
by Appellants. Further, Sen uses the term "recess" in a manner consistent with its
use in the present application, and does not use this term interchangeably with the
term "gap." See Sen ,r 112, Fig. 8A (describing recess 828c); compare Sen
independent claim 12 (reciting "a gap"), with Sen dependent claim 13 (reciting "a
recess"); cf CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224
F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("In the absence of any evidence to the contrary,
we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes
different meanings."). Therefore, we agree with Appellants that gaps 980d in Sen
Figures 12A-B are not recessed slots. We also agree with Appellants that Sen
paragraphs 133-138 do not support the Examiner's finding that the gap
characteristics are result-effective variables. See Advisory 7-8.
In sum, Appellants have argued persuasively that the Examiner reversibly
erred in finding the applied prior art discloses or suggests a shadow ring having a
recessed slot and a second annular bottom surface located therein in the manner
recited in independent claims 1 and 7. Accordingly we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 1 and 7; nor do we sustain the rejections of dependent claims
2---6, 9-12, 20, and 21, which are based on the same, unsupported finding.
REVERSED
7